Unknown Speaker 00:02 Now, for example, my feeling is that if you look at the arms race, one of the phenomenons of the life that is natural search for magic. There's always this belief that if we spend enough, if we push the search far enough, we will find ultimately, the magic weapon that will give us security. Yes, Unknown Speaker 00:32 do you think I'm trying to case I only took the idea that it was just to keep ahead of the Russians, you can they have fun if at first and we fell behind month, which he never would have happened. Again, I haven't said that. It's just keep throwing money at developing these more and more technologically advanced weapons, to just plan to keep throwing money at it, because no real idea of what we're going to reach, because it's unreachable, it's just stay ahead, which is completely something Unknown Speaker 01:03 I don't disagree with even and I think that the request for the ultimate security, which is generally defined in terms of having the unbeatable weapon is a very narrow definition of security, they'll give lip service to other definitions of security, that the Pentagon tends to find security in terms of benefits. And they'll say it's obviously good, because you want to plant the seed, of course, in the hogs control within the Pentagon, which commands more than dollars for defense, their value system is weapons and technology. I think that the history of the weapons of the arms race is that an illusory quest, that whenever you gain an edge by virtue of having had a breakthrough, and new technology, eventually gets notified by encountered development on the other side, so it's perpetually cyclical. And one of the reasons why that happens has to do with the nature of modern science and technology. In that one of the things we didn't focus, we have a chapter on history guides, and was really informative to study. Because what we found is that, throughout history, up until the modern age, weapons evolved very, very slowly, that the weapons of growing basic arsenal, virtually were unchanged for hundreds of years, to give you an example of the sort, which was a basic instrument of war, was certainly used by the Assyrians 2000 years ago. And it continued to be issued to British Army officers up in 1977. The cannon was around for at least two years. Now since flagship, when he was four years old. Think about basic, our Civil War really didn't change. It was only with the Industrial Revolution today, mass manufacturing weapons possible, as opposed to handcrafted individually. And then World War Two, the systematic application of science and technology to war, that you found amazing words of wisdom and innovation, to the point now that as I understand, weapons technology experiences the equivalent of a revolution every five years. Keeping in mind, it takes about eight years on average, to develop, manufacture and put in the hands of the military. So that's theoretically possible for weapon to become obsolete before to manufacture. All of these are dynamics which go into this endless cycle of more and more and more and more weapons was new. So Unknown Speaker 03:54 I have been trying to figure out how to speak about this topic in this framework. Because to me, as feminists, the overriding issue is how are we going to stop this weapon? You know, I mean, and that's only the top part of the tomate. Because going along with weapons technology, is the incredible destruction of the environment that's going on as we're sitting here, which I see is probably if we don't get us in a nuclear holocaust, then they are destroying the very grounds of life on this planet. And then that seems to me to be the other aspect of technology. And so when you open up with question of what is the what is a feminist response to weapons technology, then the only place I'm led to it to go is to me, the only response that feminists have to ask have to have to really think way feminists couldn't respond, at least in my definition of feminism is to begin seriously posing the question, how are we going to turn this around? In? What will it mean to how we live our ordinary lives to really make turning around? Definitely technology, which is what I see weaponry as is pure technology of death? How can we change this? Because I feel that the kind of accelerating craziness I think that what the Pentagon mentality is, is bizarre. And I think it's terrifying because I think what it is, is an absolute denial of reality, that these guys are sitting on the playing war games with their computers wiping out if they do this 20 billion people will die here. Meanwhile, everything is becoming more and more unreal. Pentagon officials telling us that we just need shovels I mean, all the things you've offered. To me, what is terrifying about this mentality is that it is based on the continuous denial of what a serious situation we are in in the world, I think they completely deny it. And fundamentally, I think it's based on that whole mentality, that they are immortal, that they do not believe in their own deaths. And so to me, as feminists, I think that weapons technology raises the question, what are we going to do about a society which has become dedicated to creating the death of this planet, in which is in control of people who have no, they argue, who holds no view of the sacredness of life? who hope to hear nothing about the plan, and finally, and to seem to be crazy enough to believe that they are more powerful than the forces of life? And that's what to me is the feminist issue. Unknown Speaker 07:11 I don't think we disagree. Nice. Well, I guess stepped up. Really could have done this, you have simply described very articulately, an outsider's perspective on someone else's culture, you are you are uncompromising, you say, I have my culture and my perception of reality, and it doesn't mesh with their perception of reality. And that to me, was really what I was trying to say is that, in a sense, because many of us do not share the values and assumptions that underlie that particular culture. It means that as outsiders, we can question the assumptions. And when you lie, it's a little bit like being the one who points out the the person on their clothes, or takes an outsider to ask them some old naive question, which is that goes to the heart. Unknown Speaker 08:08 But you see, this amount of separate cultures? I don't see it that way. I see it politically. I am i But first of all, I feel that if the hard questions that I asked myself have to do with how his mind mentality, how is my consciousness, everything about me is as implicated in this whole society, Western civilization and the advance of technology. I think it's a simplification to talk about the Pentagon is a separate culture in any sense of the word. I Unknown Speaker 08:44 think that the station America's culture because we as a nation are inaccurate. I mean, Washington. And the Park Service keeps pretty careful statistics on ready to receive kudos and popular museum is the and Space Museum. They have strips in terms of tourist attraction, all the other museums. Now what isn't being in this space. It's Unknown Speaker 09:13 the most expensive things we invest in. It's Unknown Speaker 09:15 also a manifestation of our technological society, and heavily weapons of war, space exploration, airplanes and all the things I've seen very much as the male building. And yet it is the one we're all Americans who don't go to the other museums. So I'm simply pointing that out. Is it an endorsement of what you're saying is that but I don't feel in tune with what I see as being the culture of the Pentagon. I'm very much aware of the fact that it's probably because I'm not in tune with the North American culture. But the Pentagon's culture is a manifestation with very large of modernism. have a fascination with gadgets, gizmos and technology. Unknown Speaker 10:05 You disagree, see how you can rest on technological ways. It comes from the nature, I found this system and the system. Before then World War Two, they had World War One had the weapons over the greater amount of weapons was intent on controlling as much of the world as possible and competing for all other capitalism's around, man. And to do that you have to have weapons, the best weapons possible to to look at the technology, apart from looking at the social and economic space. Not to look good. Unknown Speaker 10:53 I think this is the approach to presenting is very new and exciting to hear, because I'm involved in technology myself, and taking, seeing it as an interest. And I'm political, I'm a feminist. And there's no way that I can defend my interest in technology, seeing it as it is an intimate parallel interest throughout that the interest in technology and the consequences of being involved in technology and what the manifestations of your work can extend to positive and negative things in the world destructive as well as favorable things is the only way to justify for some of the results of an A sincere interest can be destructive to others. And taking it in that book, looking at it from how could it be that a human being knows that there are a lot of destructive elements of this in weapon, Unknown Speaker 11:51 weapon, technology have made human Unknown Speaker 11:54 being wants to be alive. Wake up and be involved in such a thing, because the direct effect is not evident when you're working in the technology and what you're doing. And I think that same in everyday things that one has dynamics will be involved. And if you look at yourself and see how some things are destructive that you do on a daily basis on a regular basis, it's conceivable to see how then it could have reached this point and that this is an element in society and what do Pentagon so that the element of interest is technology and undercurrent of how this exists in the world is very valid and interesting way of approaching the subject. Thank you for Unknown Speaker 12:35 Yeah. I wanted to add to that. I don't think any need to really analyze think it's really important. One of the questions that I had was, one seems to be right, in the sense that Mary Grant is very near and Shelley really said it was meant to say sorry. And it was a humorous isn't it expression of that? Okay. Now, it seems to me that number of things by herself in wrestling sort of on the table here. One is the tech fascination with technologies is part of the whole philosophical culture in the US that hosts Mind Body squid at a party. And a way of looking at the world sees is with the squid. And they're fascinated with technology and talked to engineers and engineers. And this is key characteristic. However, he says also true is very important, which is that people with a genuine interest in science and technology have a place to go balls to people who are interested in science. They work in defense. Very well. Weiss. Secondly, the organization of organizational structure is corporations make this is such an issue that the key employee is so busy all the time with the technology that they don't have an opportunity to think about what's it for and management controls the information and the engineers and technicians are made to do their work this overworked and they failed before the day anyway. So you put all that together, which is surely part of my fascination with technology, the helplessness of American workers, male and increasingly No, Unknown Speaker 15:01 was not forced to work for this Unknown Speaker 15:03 ungodly model and become schizophrenic, you know, go to demonstrations at night, go to work during the day. And you put it together fascination with technology and her question. Where do I really know? What I'm asking? If I Unknown Speaker 15:25 was going to suggest that really what we're saying in the sentence is that the whole military industrial complex does describe it as becomes completely separate from foreign policy. On the one hand, they're together. On the other hand, there's no reality to do even foreign policy in this manner. And my own feeling is that perhaps the only way you're getting a handle on this is through some, whether you're trying to attack it at the industrial level, which has a life of its own at this point is Unknown Speaker 16:06 kind of tremendous. If you look at a map of the United States, medical clinics here, just one pleasure show, I know that for different show movements, contractors, like guaranteed employment almost evenly spread throughout the United States. In fact, our principle works perfectly in every member of Congress serving the interests of their constituents who want money in your system. Today, history has seen to be disciplined scholars can use it politically, when I go out with my suite consultants from around the country, and people say what can you do? I said, Well, what kind of factories? And then every time I go to find that one of the best employers in the timber jobs of shutting down America is independent contractors? can you realistically go and organize your town and close down the factory? No, we can't do that. So what can you do, you have to build your strategy around the acknowledgement that there's a vested interest on the continuity status quo in almost every single community in America in the short term in the short term, which severely circumscribed the strategies that have failed. And this is what I wanted to show. This is a map that we reproduced from central banks in relation to the very conversation in Washington. And this shows just where nuclear weapons are located in the United States. It's in almost every state, in America, it's not in your state on the border, which means that there basically is no safe haven, in the United States, every single one of those is because also the Americans are targeted, on this basis, just to walk weapons are talking about Soviet things. And the irony is that in some ways, the Soviets have better survival expectations, because their landmass is so huge, and their their industries, and military facilities are concentrating in poor areas. So even if we were to love weapons, and all of their military targets, you have this vast land expenses, that would not have been directly hit. Where's it every single one of our targets for him, there's nothing that that's throughout the United States, which means that if, for example, you want to choose a strategy, and the strategy was being used by many men, which is to build a picket sign, you'd have to get into the cities. That's reality. And creative is a piece of evidence, I want to show that since we will be talking military industrial policy as a whole. And every week 70% of the engineers in the United States defense contracts. Unknown Speaker 18:49 Okay, there's another fabulous passage over the table, which is Martin Daniel in the back freezer, Connecticut has generator offices have generated tremendous research force upon the defense because contracting state and national brand, which is one of the prime contractors in the nation, back in the mind was increasing overall enrollment. Therefore, in terms of political strategies, CEOs can be employed employed now. Unknown Speaker 19:19 But the perception probably isn't people who are employed currently, so they would lose their job. Unknown Speaker 19:25 And again, you talk to engineers who might take in high tech industries, and even there, it's very iffy, because they're always being threatened with layoffs, because they're always dependent on government contracts that are not coming through United Technologies, talking about India, being bought out by somebody, so that we have to consider this very unstable economic situation. Yes. Unknown Speaker 19:50 Right now a little further, my son's working for General Electric in Massachusetts. And they were hoping to sign military and so The Union as for the one law firm, with the new leaders with MasterCard, the president to answer the b1 Bomber. Now imagine that for ordinary people in electronics and to ask the people involved, I'd like to speak on technology a little bit more. Now, it is possible to use technology for constructive purposes, for building houses Better Building. Better kitchens, for the women who have stuck in their kitchens, kitchens are so inefficient, and so on. But what happens when you build a lot of badasses, you got houses and you can't build more than you need. But when you build weapons, you every time you say every five years, you have to build a whole new set, because the others are out of date. And meanwhile, you can sell these old weapons to Saudi Arabia or to Latin America. So result points, so that you've got the profit coming in from building the new weapons and the defense contracts that come from Canada, and you've got profit coming in getting rid of these anachronistic weapons that you can sell with high prices from other governments. Unknown Speaker 21:11 And profit load is Unknown Speaker 21:15 so tremendous, that Unknown Speaker 21:20 it's very hard to beat. Unknown Speaker 21:22 Because these are the people who have the money, they have the Unknown Speaker 21:25 power. And they're the ones who get more and more than we all know that. So Jackson is not just the representative of the states for Boeing aircraft. And the same is true of many other representatives in Congress. So that's a very important question, who's going to deal with pocket? Unknown Speaker 21:46 This deduction, I think, however, they actually just the different levels of technology, right now you have technology of microwaves, and the technology used in building houses is so far behind, and the levels of technology being used for weaponry, and the level that the kinds of technology that is being used for weaponry right now, Unknown Speaker 22:09 it's so far out shot our needs for just everyday kind of technology to help us live. That the argument and the kind of tank theory that well, whatever we use in our in our weaponry will eventually be brought down to the Unknown Speaker 22:23 home uses is very, very unreasonable, because the web, the technology we are using in weapons is just so outside of our reach that there's no way I don't think you can speak up of the two kinds of technology, what I'm saying right Unknown Speaker 22:41 now, what I'm saying is steadily developing technology, while for example, recently, in the paper, there was an article that the military is planning to put so many billions into developing a very, very high speed computer. And I say, eventually, it will get into other uses. But this is the military. And so much of our advanced technology, as you say, has been developed by the military, when I was saying is why we look back from investment into constructive kinds of technology rather than to military. I'm not saying we should put it into military and public sector. Unknown Speaker 23:24 Mental health system. Unknown Speaker 23:27 I think that what you're saying is very easy. So I have a friend who is about 22 years old, and his son is a civil engineer who works for a company in the United States that specializes in helping to power plants with a major structural flaw. And in the mission plant plant right now the major vision plan, he was sent there, along with the rest of the people in this company to take care of the problem before the plant goes online. That entire plant is now sinking into the earth because they failed to do the proper composite analysis. So the soil and about two weeks ago, I was flying somewhere I had an opportunity to speak with a very young man, maybe God 27 engineer who builds nuclear power plants. And he was telling me about the excitement of doing that. And I asked him whether or not he was concerned with the results or consequences. If you said to me, this man graduated from Harvard. He said that the people who make these decisions are very intelligent. They say, Bill, honestly, Bill, sorry, this is the kind of Unknown Speaker 24:44 engineering mentality that we have. Unknown Speaker 24:48 But another point that I like to say too, is that she is thinking about the history of technology denying that exploring technology. I think that for the people who Law for the interests of ruling classes that they would like nothing better than for us to get involved in the history of techniques, or even a history of social impact. That's not where the issue is at all the issues and history of ideas. How do we ever come to think this way? How do we ever come to think that the report chemicals are hair terrible, get clean. And I see that nuclear energy and nuclear power with their weapons, raises the whole issue of the history of technology in general. And once we get into that, we see that this is not a new development, we really at the end of the second century AD and all of the weapons in place that we currently have, which did not go to power technology. But this is very most definitely, when one wants to do a generic analysis of technology and say, What is technology? What does that mean? That's where we all fail. That's where I feel we always want to rush to the tech because we always want to rush to social impact, we have to say, what are the essential features of the technology, that once we do that, you see how systematic we really have not been involved at all in the Western world. With technology, at least in that sense, we've certainly been involved remaining in the process of making human beings but we'd love to have you on. Stage, I would Unknown Speaker 26:27 stop I can say I have a very, I agree with what you say that I think the history of technology is fascinating when the ideas behind the fact I've been reading a book that I think is excellent on that, which is Lewis Mumford, who has a real critical analytic sense of the origin and history of technology. But they say to me, I really feel I don't know, I mean, how many people in this room have read John Chanel's face of the earth. But that is a, you know, a book in which he takes what seems to me to be the very, very logical, very available that have to even non technological lines, realities that exist, which to me are indisputable, we are now it seems to me at a critical point where the very issue of the survival of this planet is at stake. And I can't see what other question has any kind of priority over that. To me, it's clear that you cannot continue amassing and building the kind of I call it depth technology. And I don't think that all technology is bad, by the way. And I only sit you know, I don't think that way, but I seem that the powers that be completely control the direction of technology, and that for the most part, they are using technology for tyrannical and destructive purposes. Okay. And the to me the feminist responses, what are they? What are what is the effect that we face? Imminent extinction, not only as human beings, but as the very the very fabric of life on this planet? What else can you see when you look? What else can you see when you look at nuclear power plants? And I And again, I come back to that I think what is terrifying about the mentality is that there is a feeling of somehow that we are on some kind of a race, that there's no turning back. The technology is this force in itself is if it's not very much the product of people's minds of the power structure that exists of greed, of the desire to completely control other human beings to control nature herself, which is always been an impulse behind technology as I read history. It seems to me as a feminist, I cannot see. But that has to be the priority question. How are we going to turn this about? It is a political question. And it does raise the types of things that people have talked about, how do we speak to people because we know when we read the studies, that tech debt, weapons technology and other debt oriented technology is not the best economy that in terms of people's desire for employment. Nuclear power is a capital intensive industry. It is not an industry that creates jobs, that people are smelled by the power of the media into thinking that their jobs depend upon the proliferation of nuclear power. It's not true. The quietly just an analogy for Unknown Speaker 29:43 home just for a second. The point that you're making is you raised several issues which are really the when one does an analysis of technology come up with ideas like the question of imminence are involved and once you have the technology in place, does one day Have to go ahead and proceed. But you seem to be suggesting that there is some clear way to proceed in all of this. And I'm saying that women need to sit down and and do this analysis of technology and decide what are the essential characteristics of technology. Otherwise, why Unknown Speaker 30:20 we don't need to know the essential were to replace Unknown Speaker 30:23 women? You see, you want to say that nuclear power is the only thing that threatens us that is adapt technology. Please point out to me and the other point, technology has not a death technology. How about food and packaging of your? Oh, I agree, realize now that the Soviet physicists are the only physicists in the world that are releasing the figures on high levels of radiofrequency radiation, electromagnetic interaction, and then all of these studies indicate not high correlation, but causal links to cancer, current Unknown Speaker 30:53 abnormal cell development, Unknown Speaker 30:55 though, want to pick on nuclear powers, Unknown Speaker 30:58 the only thing is the most imminent threat to and I totally agree with what you're saying. Hello, I'm just saying I would hate to see as good as they can I finish? Can I finish? I would hate to see us pose. The question is if we have to undertake first is if theory were separate from action is if we have to undertake for some kind of a complex analysis. First, I think we develop analysis in the process of educating people about what we know, right now. We know enough right now, in the type of analysis that just suggesting it's not like I'm saying it's not important. I'm saying you don't have to stop there first. I would say and I don't believe any easy answers. I'm saying, though, that the clear, beginning to me is is a is the necessity of educating people to exercising their political power. That is what I'm saying. And they are you can develop all of the analysis around that about I see as clearly living Unknown Speaker 32:05 in a white middle class. Notice how we're all white here. He's very, I believe it? No, but it's very interesting that the peace movement in the United States is totally dominated by affluent white women. The idea that you have your energy is where are you going to? Do we open up this discussion? Just a little bit? Unknown Speaker 32:26 I mean, I would like to say, I know, green is talking a lot about nuclear, but to identify what she's saying that just just the peace movement is, is is is a misnomer. I mean, the peace movement is not talking about economic justice, to talk about peace without justice and not looking at all the technology, as you point out, is absolutely correct. I mean, we're headed for famine, we can be undermined by the whole microwave thing that's happening, we have the technology that's weighing the basis for fascism in this country and around the world. We are in the genetic pool of our foodstuffs is being endangered. I mean, we are being inundated with a death technology at all kinds of levels. All right, I think the nuclear thing is, is predominant only in the sense that it can do it so quickly. So immediately, so totally, and that's what makes production. But the thing is that what it's it's the political question, I think, is the important question, because we can sit and analyze technology, and the DIS the power, and the decisions are inquiring corporate boardrooms. And that thing is just, we can sit here and talk and talk in the meantime, they're chewing up the desert, they're spewing plutonium around their weapons, plants. I mean, all this stuff is grinding on. And the question for me is, if there's any chance at all, how do we get control of that decision making process? How do we interject and stop that thing from happening? And that, to me is like the crucial question. Unknown Speaker 33:52 There's no reason why what you're talking about what you're talking about can't go on simultaneously, with people with different approaches and just different interests. That's the only way these enormously complicated questions can be answered. And to just what you showed us that map before that there are nuclear weapons all over the country. I think what the woman did in England was a symbolic protest that I didn't appreciate when I first read about it, the New York Times. But later, somebody pointed out to me how amazing was a 14 month line of women and only women saying, we have been known as the creators of life. And we want this to stop. I mean, that is really powerful. And that may not affect concrete political change today, but it does have an effect on the way people think and might motivate them to whatever political action or academic scholarly research into a field just to address these. Unknown Speaker 34:47 Because I think that some of the things that are happening in Washington now, which is that we've been going on for years and years that military budget has been passed without anybody ever commenting on it, no group of people could care less about how many minutes from going into it or whatever it being used for. Now, even though it isn't as highly organized as we'd all like to see it, questions are being asked congressmen and senators have to respond to these questions and, and try to explain them as I'm trying to get my rational people to explain how they can pass the freeze movement. On the one hand, and on the other hand, so I think, for the first time in years, I think there's been really an awakening on the political ways that went for you. It's never been comprehensive enough, but I don't think that we can get enough. Unknown Speaker 35:47 It seems to me though, that whenever you're talking about attacking technology, or the death of technology, or you're talking about the same symptoms of our society, right now, as Unknown Speaker 35:57 long as you have a male definition Unknown Speaker 35:59 of society, you're going to be talking about a sense of oneness, a sense of dominating one person over another. And as long as this sense of reality pervades, you're always going to have this no matter what level you're going to have a sense of depth technology. Unknown Speaker 36:20 Good feeling. Assumptions. For example, I'm curious about this new dimension definition of technologies and consensus, new technologies that no, no chances are security. No, I Unknown Speaker 36:40 didn't hear that in here. Unknown Speaker 36:42 Finish what you were saying what you were saying something? Unknown Speaker 36:45 No, I just, we're talking about technology. Right now, I talked about this whole idea of security, you're talking about a competitive sort of relationship between two countries between the world and itself, you have a you're having people attacking other people, people being feeling insecure, and therefore trying to build up their own arsenal. And as long as you have this patriarchal definition of society of people dominating other people, people feel insecure, because other people are infringing on their allies, you're going to have to always address and look at Unknown Speaker 37:23 technology is a bad thing or as a you have to just deep dig through and below this idea of just technology on the surface as being something that is infringing on our existence on our own beings. I just, the question to me is much larger, it's a whole Western thought patriarchal belief that we have to break through. Interestingly, I have just been reading an article in a magazine called perspectives in biology, medicine on DNA and Copernican worldview, which gets back to the history of ideas. And briefly, what then saying is, we have shifted from the Scholastic God centered universe with all that it didn't apply to the Copernican universe, which was built on the idea of laws of nature, which we can discover and utilize, but cannot affect to a newer view that we are moving into where mankind must take responsibility for the fact that what we do, even if we think it's within the laws of nature, is going to affect what we call the lives of natures, and that we must be able to take responsibility for our actions. And I do think in that respect, history of ideas is an extremely important element. And that is only that some people have a clear thought as to what it is we're involved in, and then determine whether they're going to try to utilize can either of us only individually do we are going to try to utilize the rationalistic arguments as to why this is the wrong tab or we are misusing this technology or try to appeal to more emotional roots of behavior as is very often the case with these very strongly emotional topics or will try to work out some sort of strategy so that what is if this is a permissible term neutral, the power is the technology and the human mind utilizing it give to us can be perceived as powers if you exercise with a certain amount of care and that's that's very abstract, but But I do think the grass of responsibilities vary significantly. And I was extremely struck by I think you're largely people say to the effect of we are helpless in the grasp of technology can be done with about these plants. We there seems to be implicit in that Aslan So Unknown Speaker 40:02 you have no choice but to go Unknown Speaker 40:04 along if you want to live, and I can do this at all. That is another assumption if you knew that was fine. If you Unknown Speaker 40:12 want some numbers, that's it. I just definitely not the bed defending in one way or another. But when I hear technology being addressed as debt weapons, I found that this what we're seeing here, technology stems from an interesting study says, like philosophy and economy, economic and political views stemmed from an interest. But those other approaches to studying human nature or nature, are not the same of technology, business study, human nature, and technology. were applied in vocations, philosophy, economic or political perspectives or study of an interest of the human mind of nature of natural event. Technology is not parallel to that it doesn't study human nature and how somebody else wants to kill us. That's not technology. It is something that is used to create events, but it's not a study of things. So technology is not direct. We're not developing technology because we study that others want to kill us. It's only as a defense. There's much more to technology than that Unknown Speaker 41:25 seems to be talking about one wants to talk about political issue. Share your passion server. Unknown Speaker 41:35 For the course the issue Unknown Speaker 41:38 was we had a passionate focus in the service that ideas something which is not too popular in our society at large. And it speaks to me it not really New York City. Since I moved out scavengers world I've made my vote that kind of culture and as part of the world, American universities tend to not live in America, in Latin America retire, or should we go to America is irrelevant. And some of my concerns are maybe I living in the provinces of southern provinces. So amazing father provinces is used to love my precious people. from that viewpoint, I'd have to ask some questions. If you want to talk about the politics in American society, I want to know where to save the changes for So suppose I want to talk to his university right and Unknown Speaker 42:44 forget about it. No. Unknown Speaker 42:48 I don't play fast. I mean, first of all, talk fast, I think so. They're in high percentage of Americans, years, or within that category of technicians. They know that in France, they recall the 1968 rebellious Americans engineers are asleep. Like as far as I know, they are schizophrenic in the sense, they are really important on this side, in relation to market valuation to the politics and social circles. What that means is to try to look at how does one I'm exaggerating, of course, have this WordPress needs to serve on people who both have made their living? Probably given an alternative ticket may have voted for freezing their tower, because all of the Defense Contract accounts in the area where I would have voted. Unknown Speaker 44:02 One has to Unknown Speaker 44:03 feel to them. And that's the same thing, sir. Hey, 32, I want to concern about what I'm saying we went from the easiest to build. That's what I mean, by officers concern, they understand they tend to understand the Student Well, relative to the children's Well, being the admissions officer. The other thing, which I have in mind, in terms of the politics of this is something which I think is not talked about very much and that is I'm in no way this there is a genuine desire on the part of the American government to really afford to employ the employer. That seems to be the high technology is a way using defense contracting using enormous amounts of money for defense. This contract that Old Testament is is is a way of converting the American economy more rapidly into a kind of automated economy in which certain segments of the labor force will no longer be permanently this has been done in other parts of the century done certainly Unknown Speaker 45:20 19th century and various boys Unknown Speaker 45:24 with new kinds of technologies, where you will have the destruction of the generation of workers and possibly the generation and the Unknown Speaker 45:33 steel and steel industry. Now. Unknown Speaker 45:37 You see, you noticed computerization, robots various kinds of cybernetic change is very possible that one of the political reasons defense contracting and a very high level understood primarily a very high level is it's a good way of getting rid of the old fashioned blue collar. factor and then I think also really has to be here as far as increasing sense of technology Unknown Speaker 46:20 against we will keep it simple and easy to find and save face to face means somebody had chosen a different face. The Soviet Union has chosen to have the majority of enemies, base image artifacts permanently saved say, in most volumes for the application system, we have more than half of cars in setting which is generally considered secure and they are also our differences here basically stays in seven states that you will go for your medical medical, it says that the long range volumes facility where airbase has intercom to the pain range. In fact, that makes me believe suicide is conditions that are out there. I feel like they're the most capable bombers cannot be indicated, except for some layers on page one two that you have made this huge announcement why Intercontinental Champion hard today is that it's very difficult to get numbers a new build a relieving and someone's in we have one has a body connected to the missiles here we have the Soviets have that many there are first reactions and saying that no most obviously on the one side has more numbers than Mr. K. And there's a deliberate use of this on the Pentagon for the advocates of a particular point in time, because they know that most citizens that are basically having that defense claims. Now that estimate is of strength is very complex. It's very complicated set of calculations. It's more like comparing apples and oranges. Can you see them? So as to who's ahead, because basically the question. It is true that the Soviet Union has been rapidly modernizing their forces and acquiring both new numbers and a lot of the Americas in the past 10 years, partly because they've been trying to catch up to us historically, we've always been, quote my head. We've always had a first and they've always tried to catch up on this technology. Unfortunately. We have made strategic decisions that are different from the Soviet Union, which are based on our analysis. And normally there's no security such as pretty close to having success. So when your total is no more land based missiles, then we have the responses to say yes, but I want to make a decision on this is because it means vulnerable. And isn't it true that a lot of our missiles won second nature right now. And so doesn't that counterbalance the larger numbers of Unknown Speaker 49:56 someone else? Yes. We I'm very interested in your thoughts. You mentioned your ideology. I think that you followed by getting into Unknown Speaker 50:07 research, we fall into some Unknown Speaker 50:09 of the traps. What differences may Unknown Speaker 50:15 make a difference to me and I can't say this to people in this room around the world who the hell was. Unknown Speaker 50:34 I because it's a race, it's not in the interest of the people who work in nations, or if they both have more than enough to blow on the train and getting sucked into doing the the MX and so it shouldn't be that way. I have no interest in in defending why and defending American interest in around the world. Jordan, Saudi people have an interest in defending the Saudi is around the world interest that belong to other people in the world. It's not our world, go around and try and conquer it. And that's not our not affairs. And if as long as we start talking about this technology of that took away from the question of what kind of future we want, what social system that I think would fall into this. And, and I think one of the things that, that I find an inspiring about families questions is a question that we we asked the questions that we had questioning of those ghost practices. And it seems to me RNG has to be put in terms of thinking of alternatives. Right now. Right now, the United States and the Soviet Union, our planet to accelerate millions to hundreds of millions of people, this is an urgent question. And in terms of people's jobs, I mean, that's the one we have announcements, we're not talking about employment versus on climate, we're talking about incineration for the future, but I can speak on those world in this country, as well as around the block have aspirations for future and we have to speak. Unknown Speaker 52:32 I don't have a choice, I'd like to point out that there is probably a third of March in the census. Which may be mistaken. Nonetheless, it gives the conceptual basis. Soon the arms race, which is the way to prevent a civilization awake to prevent the Soviet Union, not in the US is to always have more than better disappeared in reference. And right now Congress considers the defense budget randomizing, which is going to take your tax dollars might turn around this is one of the reasons why there is as poorly meanings one day be elected people to make those decisions, because they perceive that their constituents believe that that's how you stay safe, is by having more veterans superior, technologically superior weapons, which will keep us away from daring to use theirs. So you have to be at least be cognizant of the kinds of assumptions that lay a permissive base for the continuation of the arms race. We have We the population at large, have largely bought from capitalist all the time workers future citizens outside of what the definition that the best, the most secure way to keep us from getting hurt is always make sure you've got the most advanced, most sophisticated, most expensive method. And that is, if you want to undo the conceptual basis, right ever, were you ever spending more and more weapons, when you're on weapons, you have to begin to address the assumptions that are so widely shared, that says the definition of the best is that which is high tech, technology, and expensive. And the way to keep secure is to have more, more more. And that's a widely shared view in our society. And that's why your congressman and my Congress and everybody else's can vote for the defense budgets and could vote for the MX and me book with me once we get it elected, because the constituents things in their interests. You have to address those assumptions. Isn't Unknown Speaker 54:50 there another function that has to be addressed and that is, Soviet Union is an enemy that we have to absolutely do read this now for so long if you stop and think about it for a moment, there's really nothing that either one of us wants to take from each other. There's a lot that we need to get to. And we have to learn how to deal with that issue rather than, you know, allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking the same enemy out there that we have to protect ourselves against. This seems to be a very basic thing that is a totally learned public becomes well enough informed to understand that no enemy that any country has ever had goes on forever. Looking at history, Britain was our worst enemy. For years. Germany was our worst enemy just a very short time ago, we learned. And we are constantly buying the notion that you can never learn to live with the Soviets. And there's absolutely no effect economic or Sure, other Beyonds when accepting that. Unknown Speaker 56:01 I just want to answer your question, which has hinges on yours. And that's to ask you, what is a very hard question for me to ask myself, and that is our disobedience enemies? And if they did that for strike capabilities for the user? Unknown Speaker 56:20 That's a good question. I would say rather than that it was I would say that we have a very long time received ourselves as long as they we found a cartoon, for example, that was done over 100 years ago, that show to the to a group of grown boys straddling the world, one was laid over the United States, and then it was laid on Russia. And the label underneath the cartoon effectively said that these two young giants are going to be rivals and dominate the world. And that's 100 year old perception. And the reality is we in terms of the what is the nature of the relationship. From a military point of view, as I mentioned, the Soviet Union is watched carefully on defense, simply because they are the only nation that has military capability. That's just reality. They can affect on the scene devastating to the military capability, whether they would have a political incentive to do some submitted question. But we've all been struggling on who has the ability to hurt us, and what we not to watch carefully, anybody who's really hurt us that only the Soviet Union have that capability. So that's one you can download. The weapons, defense department must take care. And remember, they will take an oath of office, they are constitutionally obliged to do whatever they think is necessary to defend us. It's an impeachable offense, not to prepare to defend us, and failure to take into account a potential threat. by anybody who's got the vehicle, the harness would be impeachable offense. That's not to say there are libraries for operation, we do trade with the Soviet Union cultural exchanges, that despite all the rhetoric, we started selling money. So it was not a one dimensional thing, but in terms of defense planning, always to find the enemy as the Soviet Union, just because they're the only plausible military Bibles and the columns Unknown Speaker 58:34 to them later, not our first strike capability. And the United States have a first strike capability. And it has only been under Carter 1978, when the United States became committed to developing a first strike capability and what you're getting in the Soviet magazines from the embassy, in my opinion, is that terror in response to the fact that they now know that we are getting to consider developing a first strike capability, obviously that Unknown Speaker 59:01 Well, I think the Defense Department will say that this will vulnerability which may or may not exist, which is what helped them get ready just two weeks ago, in May or May. Now, one of the things I want to say is that all of these calculations are purely theoretical because trees we are not able to test our weapons. So we don't know how they would work the way we theoretically think that you would, theoretically for one was believing so that you didn't first strike capability because I believe that leaves aside to another question which announced Unknown Speaker 59:39 three ICBMs in preparation. And we've been developing laser interceptor blades and technology for a long time. It's not operation. So they say what anybody knows anything about biotech knows that what is public assumption and where it's classified information, the discrepancy between those two things are simulated arms. And if you read, for example, the military trained journalists, the hardware journals, I don't think it's a leap of the imagination to conclude that the the reconnaissance equipment is of such a nature, one can look down at the ground to below one molecule, that capacity exists. And the resolution of the cameras are incredible. And that is publicly published documentation. So therefore, that means the verification of what is going on to study and also exist, that people will argue that, well, the infrared spectrometer, etc, you can't really get blurred pictures. But on the other hand, if you look at the magazines, they boast about the fact that you get very clear pictures. Unknown Speaker 1:00:44 I'm not sure Unknown Speaker 1:00:48 whether or not they have a first strike capability, it can really be verified, it's verifiable, there's probably been verified over the last 10 years. Unknown Speaker 1:00:57 It seems to me that you were saying for people to challenge their assumptions about Unknown Speaker 1:01:04 the definition Unknown Speaker 1:01:07 of this technology. And and and I agree with that, and I think that doing your event, like exposing the whole Asian American military establishment is very important. But I think at the same time, we have to raise the question, of course, there's going to be a conference on the nation's Soviet Union, it's not about you know, people have very different opinions. I happen to feel that the kind of system they currently have, they are in justice initiatives of people who are in control in this country and in expansion, and when aggrandizement and, and are trying to catch up, and and they're both equal threats to people. But my answer is not therefore, the United States should build up I have no idea. I have not nationalist interest in protecting this country as a country. Unknown Speaker 1:02:02 I don't think anybody here was Unknown Speaker 1:02:05 watching, she stopped by the question there securely. I mean, I should probably go out and speak to people, we also have to challenge that assumption to that fundamental assumption that we have to work on our to organize ourselves as a nation, to defend ourselves against some other nation of people that we have invested interest in the system as a system. I'm mostly interested in what the system does to people around the world. And we have that and Unknown Speaker 1:02:34 then hardest one, I mean, I don't think that you're spending all Unknown Speaker 1:02:39 this money to leverage the securities I want the bond. Unknown Speaker 1:02:43 Money mean, a larger political film, there's a larger political issue that keeps seeing argue that then starts a focus into these issues of comedy weapons, and believe it or not, you know, which is the point is yes, we understand why it would be important to have this information so you can count the people's arguments, or you can decide or you can help dispel kind of false thinking that keeps people you know, in this horrible lie, that their security is dependent upon the continued I'm sorry, I think that's the point and the larger political issue is, and I totally agree, and I think this young woman, he was getting to the same point as feminists. What is a feminist as feminists, perhaps it is outside Agnus from the development of patriarchal capitalism, its connection to nationhood, its nation hoods, connection to this paranoia, competition, aggression. massive disruptions of populations that we call walk and record is history. While we forget the rest, maybe those are the questions that as feminists, we better start asking, because the damn love scenes, because I totally agree, I do not see my interests or the interests of my daughter, which I have which I care greatly about. I do not see it in terms of is Russia the enemy? Is the United States, the good guy, I think it's ridiculous. I think that is a world that that this weapons technology that we have gotten to the point in human history of human development, where we have where human beings have a technology, that a reference technology capable of destroying life itself. And because we are at that threshold of civilization, we are challenged as a people to ask questions, the nature of which we've never probably asked before if we care about life on this planet, and they cannot be the kinds of questions which leave unquestioned nations the ultimate political reality do we have to accept as a human population that we can only be competitive? Do we have to accept the inevitability of war? Because if we do, we are accepting the extension of life on this planet. And there is no other way. There is no other conclusion to the arms race. That is the fundamental recognition. I would just want to use, asking the kind of questions you are asking how do you speak to people in an attempt to show that our economic well being is not dependent upon military? You're right, I don't have the answers. No, one person in this room has the answers to those questions. That is the challenge that lies before us. How do we speak to people? How do we create alternatives? How do we restructure the plot of the the politics of this society and everything else? Those are the hard questions. And I don't think we get to them, by country by by continuing to be outside trapped, to be trapped within the definitions in the perspectives of the powers that be in them, we can do nothing, we are in a closed system, we have to step up. And maybe it says feminists that we can do that. Unknown Speaker 1:06:25 To say that, that was a very interesting book called the conscience of this industry, by Hanson Berger was a Geo. Marxist. And he makes a point about how incredibly naive the left is that whatever they want to start a revolution, they always strive to do dance on the thing and hanging on the wall and say, Let's revolt. And my question, I think that all of us here are interested in ways that we can be empowered, and that we can possibly even have power or possibly even recent inclusion that we have to, in one sense of the word take over. Because we feel that there is a group of people, perhaps a race of people who have completely gone crazy, and we need to do something about it. But the thing is, is that maybe 10 years ago, I'm ashamed to say I used to do consulting for General Electric, and on a daily basis was dependent on engineers and people like that. And the thing is, is that my question to you, it seems to me that each time we get near this each time you actually talk about weapons, we all get nervous, and we want to go off on this very grandiose kind of thing. But the thing is, is Unknown Speaker 1:07:34 how technically competent the women have to become Unknown Speaker 1:07:38 how many physicists do we have to produce? How many engineers? How much do we have to participate in the technology before we can really affect what's going on in the country? Unknown Speaker 1:07:51 Well, can I just address that in one way, because there's this like, in his book that we are referred to Jonathan shells, the fate of the Earth, if you look at it, like like a, like a flock, as long as these weapons systems are in place, let's just say we're one minute from midnight, which is blowing up. And if you if you take away the plants that build these weapons, maybe we're five minutes away, because as soon as you can build the plants up and build the weapons, you're still that close to world destruction. And I don't think it takes being involved in weapons systems to talk about the fact we have to end weaponry, we have to end the concept of war, we have to learn to live on this planet in a totally different way. You know, it's we have time to talk about justice, we've got to talk about ecology, we have gotten to talk about living together in a way that basically all our religions talk about, but none of them practice. And I do not think you have to be an expert in nuclear stuff to be to begin Unknown Speaker 1:08:54 to deal with. The question I'm asking first is, what do I try to answer from my point of view? Technologically, how many? How much do we Unknown Speaker 1:09:04 have to enter into computer technology? How much do we have to enter into genetic engineering in place? How is it that he tries to do on a daily basis depended on people and if you cannot speak their language, you cannot talk to them. And they would regard 90% of what we're saying here is just to sit there and put your mind to spin and you don't want Unknown Speaker 1:09:28 to change that. Hey, engineers, good people, negros secretaries who work for places like General Electric neither of us, neither of us. I don't think so. Neither. In other words you need are people you could define the level of management that you can go on to you take a very competent, mechanical engineer, optical engineer. He knows less about the overall weaponization situation in this country. Probably most of the people sitting around this table. The manager of his department knows what As you'd have to go way high up, where you get somebody who knows more, what makes you human to change people at that level? Unknown Speaker 1:10:07 Well, I wouldn't. I'd like to bring in something positive, I think more positive, and that is relevant for the job. So please stand up a campaign that is addressed to women, and to black people, no minority people are being very much hurt by what is happening Unknown Speaker 1:10:32 under this administration or previous administrations. But this administration Unknown Speaker 1:10:36 is one much further than previous ones, and cutting off everything that's worthwhile in life for these people, and also men, because men are losing their jobs very much. These days. Jobs with peace, is developing plans for conversion from the military to peace time, a notch throwing out technology, but how can we use technology for the good and not for destruction? Gaza peace is also going into the schools in education. Like that developed curriculum materials in Massachusetts, which means there last year new schools that were developing city Unknown Speaker 1:11:24 bring any material. Unknown Speaker 1:11:28 Alternative defense, Unknown Speaker 1:11:31 by Cisco, we answer your very important questions that is every single level, which any of us this work, we find some way to raise the questions. And particularly, it seems to me to talk about the fact that war never answers problems and creates new problems. And that is civilized people. And I think we would have such a stake in this and understand it so much. There are very complex problems out there you solve and the most simplistic adolescent way is to think you can throw money at a war machine and answer it that way. And we were doing it all through Latin America right now, in the Near East. The only answers that politicians have had is just this administration, unfortunately, goes back is to figure out how you can be stronger and never really addressing very basic questions. So I think every single camera on the screen, there are ways to begin at getting people to defend them. And they're very open to it now simply because the economy is so for everything we need to come together. And make sense the way we did it two years, Unknown Speaker 1:12:51 even knows that the board of education, jobs with Beatrice Unknown Speaker 1:12:57 Yeah, they don't mind to say the powers that be would be very comfortable with supporting technological education. In fact, they're freaked out because there's not enough technological education going on in schools. I personally think that that shows that tech is one of the things that I'm fearful about in terms of the education system, that there is such a romance with the technology, that they that people need to feel that philosophy doesn't matter if morals doesn't matter, that the study of human history doesn't matter if if that is exactly what the problem with the technology that has become divorced from any human questions that have to do with but what about the use of this technology? So I feel that the more threatening education is not to become technologically adept, it's to become morally humanly intelligent, humanistically intelligent in ways that we meet in deeper ways than ever. That's that's the, you Unknown Speaker 1:14:03 know, the big issues that we've seen, you know, great, its introduction with math and science and promotional that that doesn't in any way, girls, well, I've you know, he's not he's not interested in little, you know, anyone. Unknown Speaker 1:14:18 I'm just saying that it seems to me that in terms of education, I feel that it is the intellect it is the education of our moral beings, that is probably far more crucial to our survival than the education of our technological of beings at this point in time. Well, let's put it this way. It's the bringing together that since the powers that be are not interested in that we better bring it to it we better bring the human humanities to technology. That's Unknown Speaker 1:14:51 what it's all the rhetoric is the basic question. Well, what do you love the rhetoric by the way, and don't get me wrong? Unknown Speaker 1:14:59 It's not I record really believe Unknown Speaker 1:15:04 Well, I think that they I don't know what you call the basic question, but I've got Unknown Speaker 1:15:07 a basic What did you see the patient? What how does one is confronted with the fact to make these changes? Unknown Speaker 1:15:14 That's the basic okay. There may why maybe we should Unknown Speaker 1:15:17 spend some shields Unknown Speaker 1:15:20 with your formulation to question because it's what helped us in our study that is there is a certain reality, which is Nevers, expertise, clarity within our society. Military expertise, technology, expertise is very unevenly distributed. And most people will learn that and we share widely feel. I don't have a right to challenge an answer fundamental questions about technology, that I cannot begin to understand if I can just say this enough works have technical knowledge that two talented utility, experts talk in jargon that's impenetrable to me, I can't begin to communicate with them. So we start out with a premise that more citizens need to know enough to begin to engage in some sort of a two way discussion among themselves. Now, decision makers are the people who self stop experts to begin to have a lot of debate about what is the nature of our of our cultures, having to defend them? Where does technology fit into our value system? And so we started out with a very explicit goal, not making citizens experts, but rather making them informed distinction, and you might pay me Well, let me clarify, oh, wait, no, no, excuse me, let me finish Unknown Speaker 1:17:01 this. All of us have our basic values that war, peace and relationship in force. Society, you don't need necessarily, to have expertise in order to have a value system that you've gotten back to cultural religion, what you're doing is at least to have information that is sufficient to allow you to go out and try and politically implement your value system. That it's very easy in a society in which there's no reference to expertise to be more dismissed. If someone can point out why you do not love them. They'll say, Why should I listen to you? Oh, no, you're talking about experts, the experts over here telling you X, Y, and Z, when they have review done challenge. And I get that all the time. We have tremendous difference in experts, whether it's doctors or scientists or educators, and whatever. And my feeling is that we will all have our bachelor's, feeling very strongly about that is what we need is the basic equipment that will allow us number one, to be able to literally do our funerals. And number two, without enough information, next, we're confident that we can go out and do something effective debate or persuading other people about the rightness of our views, to be politically effective, and it's supposed to be a democracy. And so essentially, what I feel is that we can become informed enough to take our values and translate them into political goals that will stand up credibly, that will allow us to withstand humiliation and ridicule and developing by those who will challenge your mind to speak. And that is simply what I think is sort of the ground ground basis for having a democracy, you have to have an informed citizenry, who feels that they've got the right to speak up and ask questions of the people they call us and in their thing, because they are experts. It's called it's called holding your decision makers accountable. You can't hold your decision makers accountable. You can't figure out what they're doing. Unknown Speaker 1:19:21 I think that's like a real important part of it. I think we do have to be informed. But the other part of it is there is a very deep and real concern. You put democracy in quotes and it is in quotes. And then even after we get informed, we are faced with a question, how do we hold decision makers accountable? Or can we even deal with these decision makers? Do we have to like restructure things in some way? Unknown Speaker 1:19:47 Or communicate those different let me give you a simple thing. This is going to love a lot of people. That's true. The vast majority of Congress never pay for their constituents one way or the other on The vast majority of decisions that they make and they know that their citizens are not watching. And they conclude from that they can decide wishes one way or the other responds with interest pressures that are not coming from decisions. When the sole treaty was before the SEC. At the height of the debates Paragon was called the size trees we've had several Monahan said he got more letters from New York State residents who are presumably tackling dangered species that he heard one way or another for members who had any opinions on what he should do one. So actually, he conclude from that you can do whatever you wanted, until June and there be no penalty at the polls here. But you get down to why not is on the budget and how much we should spend for weapons. And when we ship particular weapon system or not, or any other thing that goes into the making of offensive policy, most citizens never express compassion. Unknown Speaker 1:20:55 Let me just like talk to you a little bit about those forces Kristin, while the schools, the media entertainment do not inform people, in fact, they work just the opposite. So you've got all those forces to move against us, we are not putting 1000s and millions of dollars into the political war chest. So these politicians, our little letter does not outweigh the the lobbying of IBM or General Motors or or whatever. I mean, to talk at Ziff that all we have to do is be informed and write letters. I mean, there have been millions Unknown Speaker 1:21:27 of things you can do. If you're waiting, Unknown Speaker 1:21:29 and I didn't finish, I didn't finish, let me just finish. Okay. I mean, to talk about it in that kind of way, distorts what our problem is, I mean, because we have a structure here very much weighted against people becoming informed. And if we do manage to get informed, being able to implement our ideas and visions, and we have got to talk about that political process. We know we have to inform each other. But writing to a senator is it may be a piece of the puzzle, but it is absolute madness, to think that that is going to turn around the forces that direct or what's happening Unknown Speaker 1:22:04 in this country, elected next November, Unknown Speaker 1:22:07 somebody just like him will be written to us at lunch. I have written to senators, certainly. Unknown Speaker 1:22:13 Well, the thing is, is that what you're saying is, is when we go away to a place like this thinking we're totally in payment, then no, I'm Unknown Speaker 1:22:21 saying, I'm trying to find a way to potency. All right, I do not I do not want to keep doing impotent Unknown Speaker 1:22:28 things is that as a matter of fact, you know, writing a letter to CVS is a very, very serious thing. I've done it that they contact you sometimes they contact you personally. Why do you think that, for instance, that silly thing that the world majority of pundits, calling it silly, but they were talking about advertisers and not watching television anymore, that is a truly revolutionary thing to be doing in the United States, they actually can organize people not to watch television, because they're not interested in the programming, you can, then you can bet your ass that people would be interested in that. I just recently had an incident that I thought was very interesting. There's a silver polish company, it's called Super polish. And I'm using it for my hands that I can't see it from here. But I've been experimenting for six months, and it totally rocks off your hands. It's only for the company is owned by Schultz, candor, I have written letters to the company, as well as writing Ralph Nader and also organizations in New York, and you would not believe the response. I said, I suggested to them that they had better get on it and put something on the stove and polish saying that it is deadly poison to your skin. The thing is, is that we do have power, we can do things we can do concrete things step by step to stop this madness. But that's what we're quite what people in Unknown Speaker 1:23:49 the circle have been talking about this as a political issue of your time say, what are those things? They're certainly not in my mind, you know, getting trapped in the framework of you know, I don't want to reiterate the same old things that not in my mind, the the tight, I will feel it but a different if anybody's heard me say that that is not at all what I've said, I've said that I've seen that the issues that we're discussing, challenge us as responsible beings to find ways of turning this situation around in those ways are going to be political, they must be established, the problem is not a technological problem. It is a political problem. Who controls that, you know, so I don't feel limited in the types of things you're saying I agree with. I think there would be tremendous power in organizing a group of people in in and using the power of a group of people to have an economic effect because within the powers that be that's what they listen to is something that could have an economic effect and is not going to get them elected or whatever, you know, I you know, so This agreement is because that the question is, though, you know, to me is the is how do we speak with people? And what do we speak about? And how do we connect this issue of weapons technology to the other issues that are the ones with economic injustice jobs. And those are the things that I think are important when you've been waiting to say something Unknown Speaker 1:25:21 has changed every time. Because the theme of this is women in technology, I just want to address one question you just brought up about to address weapons and technology. There's a wonderful book that came out last year, written by James Fallows called national defense, where he explores some of the recently developed weapons systems that the United States has invested in at great cost, and tells you how they fared in their testing. And, for instance, the air Montaigne, and a few of the other things that we've come up with do not fare very well in the battlefield. And so if you want to talk to somebody about the technology and the level of technology and all the investment and where exactly it gets us, I'd suggested with a book downpayment back Unknown Speaker 1:26:03 four or $5, I'm going to put a Unknown Speaker 1:26:04 plug in Sheila's book, instead of a very simplified way, we need to leave and all these things up because there's so much of it too, sometimes really, the overwhelm that I've found is going through that and I'm still doing it because you have to do it very slowly. I like to put it in your Unknown Speaker 1:26:28 book that challenges one very Unknown Speaker 1:26:31 deeply. Yes, there are Unknown Speaker 1:26:34 probably advocates just just raising the question gets us halfway and what shattered because it's about educating ourselves. Find find out where where the problems are. addition to our teacher we have started Unknown Speaker 1:27:13 is Brittany